Key information
Executive summary
This paper requests approval for funding to procure a new misconduct and complaints management system. The contract period is for three years plus up to two years extension.
Recommendation
The DMPC is asked to approve funding to procure a new misconduct and complaints management system. The contract period is for a period of three years with an option to extend for a further two years.
Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. The MPS is required to manage misconduct and complaints cases both within the MPS and against the MPS. The IT system, the MPS currently uses to support this work is called Tribune. This is a bespoke system, specifically developed for the MPS.
1.2. Tribune is no longer fit for purpose and the MPS is at risk of being not legally compliant with current standards. This proposal requests approval to procure an IT system called Centurion, which is used by nearly all other UK forces.
1.3. The MPS require a robust and more sophisticated complaints management system that will be adaptable to meet future demands, legislative changes and meets current business needs. The system also needs to be accessible to MOPAC staff to support greater oversight of the MPS complaints and management of local level appeals.
2. Issues for consideration
2.1. The new Policing and Crime Bill proposes reforms to the police complaints and disciplinary systems. MOPAC will have the option to adopt one of three models of oversight of MPS complaints. The aim being to improve accountability and integrity of the police complaints system.
2.2. These are discussed in the Part 2.
3. Financial Comments
3.1. The proposal will implement an IT solution that meets legal requirements, modernises practices, improve efficiencies and standardise corporate ways of working. The improvement in efficiencies will create non cashable savings of approximately £206,000 (equivalent to 1,538 staff days).
3.2. These are discussed in the Part 2.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. These are discussed in the Part 2.
5. Equality Comments
5.1. There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report
6. Background/supporting papers
6.1. None.